task_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states a read-only fetch operation, which is inherently non-destructive, but it doesn't explicitly disclose that it is read-only or what happens if the UPID does not exist. It also doesn't mention whether it returns progress information or just a final status.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and contains no extraneous content. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 string parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description gives the essential function but lacks details about the 'node' parameter and prerequisites (e.g., the task must have been started on that node). It also doesn't hint at return values, though that is partially covered by the phrase 'status and exit status'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only explicitly mentions 'UPID' and entirely omits 'node', leaving the node parameter undefined. While 'node' likely refers to the Proxmox node, the description does not clarify its role, leaving a gap for the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and defines the exact resource ('status and exit status of an asynchronous Proxmox background task') and the access method ('by UPID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recent_tasks, which lists tasks, and get_vm_status, which returns VM state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys the clear context: use this tool when you have a UPID from an asynchronous Proxmox task and need to check its status. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and fits within the broader workflow of managing async operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.